News The US has the best health care in the world?

[Al68]

I did provide the facts and figures from trusted and regarded sources.

But they simply did not back up your claim. In fact your source showed the opposite general trend of your claim. The infant mortality rate is, on average, much higher in countries with universal health care than in the U.S.

That's how statistics work. If you pick and choose data points, you can make any conclusion you want, even if it is the exception to the rule. If you want to relate universal health care to the infant mortality rate, then you must consider all countries with universal health care, not just choose the ones that happen to deviate from the general trend.

If you don like it... then Support a decent Health care system.

I have a better idea. If you don't like it, then support freedom.

 

[Hans de Vries]

But they simply did not back up your claim.

Your problem seems to be a lack of knowledge of which countries are
in Europe and which of them have welfare systems that you would call
"Socialist welfare systems"

The latter have lower infant mortality rates as the rest of Europe and
much lower as the USA.
Regards, Hans

 

[Al68]

Your problem seems to be a lack of knowledge of which countries are
in Europe and which of them have welfare systems that you would call
"Socialist welfare systems"

Nope. It seems that you don't realize that your claim was that the reason that those European countries (that had lower infant mortality rates than the U.S.) did so because of universal health care, then you cited a source that showed that the countries you picked were exceptions to the general trend that most countries with universal health care have much higher infant mortality rates than the U.S.

If you're going to claim universal health care is the reason for low infant mortality rates, then you must compare all countries with universal health care, not just the ones you chose that you don't think I know are in Europe.

What if I were to claim that many, many millions of Indian children would be saved if only they eliminated universal health care? After all, their infant mortality rate is 55 compared to 6.3 in the U.S. The only difference between my ridiculous claim and yours is that my example (India) is close to the overall average of the data.

 

[Hans de Vries]

If you're going to claim universal health care is the reason for low infant mortality rates, then you must compare all countries with universal health care, not just the ones you chose that you don't think I know are in Europe.

What if I were to claim that many, many millions of Indian children would be saved if only they eliminated universal health care? After all, their infant mortality rate is 55 compared to 6.3 in the U.S. The only difference between my ridiculous claim and yours is that my example (India) is close to the overall average of the data.

There's no use at all in comparing the US with countries which do not have
similar standards of living and comparable GDP per capita.

India has 2% of the US GDP per capita, wide spread poverty and abysmal
water supply and sanitation. Furthermore, 60% of healthcare in India is
private-sector anyway... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_IndiaRegards, Hans

 

[Al68]

There's no use at all in comparing the US with countries which do not have
similar standards of living and comparable GDP per capita.

That's like picking healthy smokers (instead of smokers at random) to claim that smoking is good for your health, claiming there is no use comparing non-smokers to people with lung cancer or emphysema.

Infant mortality rate is partially dependent on standard of living and GDP. And standard of living and GDP per capita is dependent on economic freedom. Notice that both Sweden and Norway rate rate higher than average (about 70) in the index of economic freedom overall, despite universal health care. If you want to isolate universal health care as a "cause" of something, you can't cherry pick the countries that have high standards of living/GDP to do it, when they are far from representative of most countries with universal health care.

India has 2% of the US GDP per capita, wide spread poverty and abysmal
water supply and sanitation.

Because of socialist policies.

Furthermore, 60% of healthcare in India is
private-sector anyway...

Not in the relevant sense here. They have universal health care.

 

[Hans de Vries]

That's like picking healthy smokers (instead of smokers at random) to claim that smoking is good for your health, claiming there is no use comparing non-smokers to people with lung cancer.

Infant mortality rate is partially dependent on standard of living and GDP. And standard of living and GDP per capita is dependent on economic freedom. Notice that both Sweden and Norway rate rate higher than average (about 70) in the index of economic freedom overall, despite universal health care. If you want to isolate universal health care as a "cause" of something, you can't cherry pick the countries that have high standards of living/GDP to do it, when they are far from representative of most countries with universal health care.Because of socialist policy.Not in the relevant sense here. They have universal health care.

Obama is looking at Western European countries which have demonstrated
better benchmarks in healthcare at reduced bureaucratic overhead and less
excessive costs.

These countries are what one would call Social Democracies with experienced
Welfare systems. They try to combine entrepreneurial freedom with
governmental responsibility.

Simplistic comparisons like "Obama=Socialism" totally ignore what is really
going on in these countries.


Regards Hans.

 

[Al68]

Obama is looking at Western European countries which have demonstrated
better benchmarks in healthcare at reduced bureaucratic overhead and less
excessive costs.

These countries are what one would call Social Democracies with experienced
Welfare systems. They try to combine entrepreneurial freedom with
governmental responsibility.

Simplistic comparisons like "Obama=Socialism" totally ignore what is really
going on in these countries.

Well, if you're just claiming that the economic policies of Sweden and Norway are much better than those of most socialist countries, then I agree with you 100%.

They do have more economic freedom than most, despite not being libertarian paradises, and as a result they fit the general trend that economic freedom improves standards of living.

But universal health care isn't the cause of low infant mortality rates, like you earlier suggested. You just can't statistically isolate universal health care as a cause by picking the successes and ignoring the failures. Especially when failure is the norm, and the successes are obviously due to relative economic freedom (along with other factors of course).

In other words, Sweden and Norway are "right-wing" relative to most socialist countries, despite having universal health care in common. That's why they have a higher standard of living which leads to a lower infant mortality rate.

And another important point is country size. The U.S. must be compared to comparable size countries for any meaningful economic policy analysis. And as has been pointed out, among large countries, the U.S. consistently has a much higher standard of living, GDP per capita, it dominates all the charts when it comes to health, from infant mortality rates to cancer survival rates, and everything in between. Obviously that says something about which economic policies work best for large countries.

 

[WhoWee]

The health care debate is about cost. The current Government programs account for roughly 50% of the total cost already. These programs are mismanaged and (in the case of Social Security) surpluses are looted to pay for other projects.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
"Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care

Health care spending continues to rise at a rapid rate forcing businesses to cut back on health insurance coverage and forcing many families to cut back on basic necessities such as food and electricity and, in some cases, shelters and homes.

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems increase the cost of medical care associated with government health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.



National Health Care Spending

* National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 2018, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.4 trillion—more than double 2007 spending.1
* National health expenditures are expected to increase faster than the growth in GDP: between 2008 and 2018, the average increase in national health expenditures is expected to be 6.2 percent per year, while the GDP is expected to increase only 4.1 percent per year. 1
* In just three years, the Medicare and Medicaid programs will account for 50 percent of all national health spending. 1
* Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that will grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time. 2
* According to one study, of the $2.1 trillion the U.S. spent on health care in 2006, nearly $650 billion was above what we would expect to spend based on the level of U.S. wealth versus other nations. These additional costs are attributable to $436 billion outpatient care and another $186 billion of spending related to high administrative costs. 3"Also http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm"By Seung Min Kim, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers.

Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group.

"I don't think anybody has any idea about how much they are paying because of the need to cover the health care costs of the uninsured," said Ron Pollack, the group's executive director. "This is a hidden tax on all insurance premiums, whether it is paid by business for their work or by families when they purchase their own coverage.""

We are already paying for the unpaid balances of the uninsured.

Universal health care or single payer will eventually funnel all of the health insurance premiums through Washington. This is not the answer. Our elected officials can not be trusted with "Trust Funds" - they've proven this point with their handling of Social Security funds.

 

[mheslep]

There's no use at all in comparing the US with countries which do not have
similar standards of living and comparable GDP per capita...

Hans, there's no use in making an infant mortality comparison unless you know the standards used in making the count. You do not, or have not demonstrated it here.

...First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm
There are other factors, such as the abortion rate, that neatly remove what might high risk pregnancies from the statistics. The abortion http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html" in Europe is nearly twice as high as in North America.

 

[mheslep]

Obama is looking at Western European countries which have demonstrated better benchmarks in healthcare

No, they have not demonstrated better medical care related outcomes. The US tops most of those.

at reduced bureaucratic overhead and less
excessive costs...

Yes European health care costs less, nearly half the US, hence the the concentration on cost savings in this debate. I don't think the bureaucratic overhead claim holds everywhere.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Hans, there's no use in making an infant mortality comparison unless you know the standards used in making the count. You do not, or have not demonstrated it here.

These are the official lists used internationally to compare this particular statistic.
You have to give a quantitative indication of what percentage of births belongs
to these exceptional cases.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm
There are other factors, such as the abortion rate, that neatly remove what might high risk pregnancies from the statistics. The abortion http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html" in Europe is nearly twice as high as in North America.

Actually, It's the other way around for the countries we are talking
about. According to your source:

Abortion rates per 100 known pregnancies:

Western Europe... 17
Northern Europe... 23
Northern America... 26
Southern Europe... 34
Eastern Europe...65

The total number for Europe is skewed by the higher abortion rates in
the former Sovjet-Block states.

Regards, Hans

 

[mheslep]

These are the official lists used internationally to compare this particular statistic.
You have to give a quantitative indication of what percentage of births belongs
to these exceptional cases...

'Official' list? Exceptional cases? There is no 'official' list, that's an argument from authority fallacy. The CIA list is a still just a list. There's a source, and we judge its accuracy and value depending on the documented process behind it. What does 'infant mortality' mean? How are premature or low birth weight pregnancies counted? What are the average ages of women having babies in those countries? I've provided a reference showing how these infant mortality comparisons between countries are fundamentally flawed due to serious differences in data collection, not some exceptional cases. The best one can do from these lists, without correcting for differences in the measurement, is to say a given nation is in the top 20% or so.

 

[Hans de Vries]

'Official' list? Exceptional cases? There is no 'official' list, that's a a argument from authority fallacy. The CIA list is a still just a list. There's a source, and we judge its accuracy and value depending on the documented process behind it. We can only assume that the CIA is using the OECD data like everyone else. I've provided a reference showing how these infant mortality comparisons between countries are fundamentally flawed due to serious differences in data collection, not some exceptional cases. The best one can do from these lists, without correcting for differences in the measurement, is to say a given nation is in the top 20% or so.

You fail to give any proof for your claims. You can't just simply bend the facts
until you like them. Do you really believe yourself what you are saying?

This is a SCIENTIFIC website. Try to argue in a SCIENTIFIC way. Give me FACTS
and not your BELIEFS.

 

[mheslep]

You fail to give any proof for your claims. You can't just simply bend the facts
until you like them. Do you really believe yourself what you are saying?

This is a SCIENTIFIC website. Try to argue in a SCIENTIFIC way. Give me FACTS
and not your BELIEFS.

Han's YOU have made made the claims here, and followed them up with hyperbole and assertion. Where are your facts? You've quoted a Wiki page, with no backup or further definition. The conclusions you draw in #686 are simple nonsense, you should delete it.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Han's YOU have made made the claims here, and followed them up with hyperbole and assertion. Where are your facts? You've quoted a Wiki page, with no backup or further definition. The conclusions you draw in #686 are simple nonsense, you should delete it.

Some US states DO have "Western European" levels of infant mortality,
at least for whites:

New Jersey ... 3.7
Massachusetts ... 4.0
California .... 4.6
New York .... 4.6

Do these states "cheat" 3% to 4% away from their statistics as well?

The US average is dragged down by the states run by conservatives.
The numbers for non-Hispanic whites:

West Virginia ... 7.5
Oklahoma .... 7.5
Arkansas .... 7.2
Louisiana .... 7.1
Indiana ... 7.0
Tennessee ... 7.0
Mississippi ... 7.0

It's the neocon fanatics who put the US to shame, again. Organizing a witch hunt
against Health care reform while failing to take care of their own newborns.
Map of Infant mortality under non-Hispanic whites in the US per state:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=48&cat=2&sub=13&yr=79&typ=3&o=a&sortc=1
Infant mortality per country worldwide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

 

[mheslep]

As I alluded to above, one of the difficulties in counting is deciding what's a still birth and what's a live birth.
Dutch pediatric association:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3677278.stm

.. At 23/24 weeks' gestation, the chances of a positive prognosis for the premature baby are so slender that, in principle, no intensive [post natal] care is offered...

Thus any birth at less that 25 weeks is counted as a still birth in the Netherlands. And the infant mortality statistics are heavily impacted (34% of all infant deaths) by premature births in the US:

CONCLUSIONS. On the basis of this evaluation, preterm birth is the most frequent cause of infant death in the United States, accounting for at least one third of infant deaths in 2002. The extreme prematurity of most of the infants and their short survival indicate that reducing infant mortality rates requires a comprehensive agenda to identify, to test, and to implement effective strategies for the prevention of preterm birth

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/4/1566

 

[mheslep]

Some US states DO have "Western European" levels of infant mortality,
at least for whites:

New Jersey ... 3.7
Massachusetts ... 4.0
California .... 4.6
New York .... 4.6

Do these states "cheat" 3% to 4% away from their statistics as well?

We can compare state to state in the US and have that discussion if you like, because live birth and still births are counted the same way across the US. They are NOT measured the same way across other countries as has been shown now in a couple of posts.

The US average is dragged down by the states run by conservatives.

Please. You were saying this is a scientific website?

 

[WhoWee]

It's the neocon fanatics who put the US to shame, again. Organizing a witch hunt
against Health care reform while failing to take care of their own newborns.

Hans,

Do you realize you've provided more data in this discussion
than the politicians leading the debate? There is of course a reason.

The Government run programs are in trouble. The Social Security funds have been stolen, and medicare and medicaid are both in trouble. Nobody wants to solve the inherent problems.

At the same time, the insurance industry is over-regulated (which leads to ineffciency and higher administrative costs) and competition is cost prohibitive. Additionally, the cost of uninsured (unpaid balances) are passed on to the insured and people with pre-existing conditions are forced to accept indemnity coverage or left on their own.

The politicians want a single payer system for one reason. They will control all of the money. Let me repeat, the politicians want to control ALL of the money. It's the best way for them to fix the Ponzi scheme (as described earlier) that social Security has become.

This debate is not focused on specific improvements to infant mortality or any other issues. We are hearing about H1N1 a lot in the past few days though - as Rahm Emanuel said ...take advantage of every crisis.

Until politics is removed from the debate and problem solving techniques are applied, nothing will be resolved.

 

[turbo]

At the same time, the insurance industry is over-regulated (which leads to ineffciency and higher administrative costs) and competition is cost prohibitive. Additionally, the cost of uninsured (unpaid balances) are passed on to the insured and people with pre-existing conditions are forced to accept indemnity coverage or left on their own.

I have spent years in the bowels of a large private medical practice, I assure you (as Adreneline will attest) that this is NOT the case. Insurance companies are not over-regulated. They are under-regulated, and they make the rules under which our health-care providers have to operate, to the detriment of all of us.

There are those on the sidelines (mostly right-wingers with no experience in the provision of medical services) that claim that over-regulation of the insurance companies caused health insurance costs to double in less than a decade, when a reasonable review of the facts proves otherwise. It is the lack of oversight and regulation that allow health insurance companies to Balkanize US health care and create state-wide monopolies that are practically impossible to break.

We need to get the GOP/Dem dichotomy out of this, and break up a monopoly that threatens to destroy the US economy. If we don't get meaningful and effective (cost-savings) health care reform soon, the US will be a third-rate country with nothing but a bloated military and massive debt to distinguish us. That, and the fact that anyone who comes down with a catastrophic illness forfeits all his or her savings and assets to the wealthy in a possibly futile attempt to stay alive.

 

[WhoWee]

I have spent years in the bowels of a large private medical practice, I assure you (as Adreneline will attest) that this is NOT the case. Insurance companies are not over-regulated. They are under-regulated, and they make the rules under which our health-care providers have to operate, to the detriment of all of us.

There are those on the sidelines (mostly right-wingers with no experience in the provision of medical services) that claim that over-regulation of the insurance companies caused health insurance costs to double in less than a decade, when a reasonable review of the facts proves otherwise. It is the lack of oversight and regulation that allow health insurance companies to Balkanize US health care and create state-wide monopolies that are practically impossible to break.

We need to get the GOP/Dem dichotomy out of this, and break up a monopoly that threatens to destroy the US economy. If we don't get meaningful and effective (cost-savings) health care reform soon, the US will be a third-rate country with nothing but a bloated military and massive debt to distinguish us. That, and the fact that anyone who comes down with a catastrophic illness forfeits all his or her savings and assets to the wealthy in a possibly futile attempt to stay alive.

The over-regulation I'm referring to is primarily with regards to individual state mandates, HIPPA requirements, and tax considerations.

 

[WhoWee]

all i know is private insurances follow medicare fee schedules. some pay less ( I fire those plans when I review their contract and see they are paying us less than medicare set fees)

This directly effects health care quality.

 

[WhoWee]

here is a good synopsis about the public option facts and myths
http://www.pnhp.org/change/Public_Option_Myths_and_Facts.pdf


see page 2


Obama's public option won't save me on my adminstrative and beaurocratic costs.


I have one medicare/medicaid coder and biller, I have a army to deal with the 200 private insurance plans, I have six check in and check out people to confirm insurances, wether they pay for physicals, what labs I must send blood work to etc., I have over 8 -telephone people at all times not just fielding questions but also helping with prior authorizations and precerts, etc. If the public option now offers me another say 100 plans, all with different formulaies, contsraints on procedures, which labs I have to send my blood ( lab corp,quest etc.) I will have to hire another slew of office workers just to deal with them.

Medicare's rules are simple, their formulay does not change every three months, I know where I stand with them. WHen they privatized into competeing HMOs, most of us just could not handle the "patchwork" of differing regulations and rules etc, hence, most of us don't take privatized medicare. ( in my county)

She outlined some of the problems regarding regulations.

 

[WhoWee]

I had to send my office manager to numerous classes that were not cheap, hired a consultant and software engineer to make our electronic medical records Hippa compliant, had to renovate our office ( put glass panels between nurses stations and patient rooms) and make our office hippa compliant, etc. probably 50-75 thous?

This was her response when I asked about the specific cost of HIPPA to her practice. It cost her over $50,000 and possibly as much as $75,000 - for one office.

 

[turbo]

I have one medicare/medicaid coder and biller, I have a army to deal with the 200 private insurance plans, I have six check in and check out people to confirm insurances, wether they pay for physicals, what labs I must send blood work to etc., I have over 8 -telephone people at all times not just fielding questions but also helping with prior authorizations and precerts, etc. If the public option now offers me another say 100 plans, all with different formulaies, contsraints on procedures, which labs I have to send my blood ( lab corp,quest etc.) I will have to hire another slew of office workers just to deal with them.

Medicare's rules are simple, their formulay does not change every three months, I know where I stand with them. WHen they privatized into competeing HMOs, most of us just could not handle the "patchwork" of differing regulations and rules etc, hence, most of us don't take privatized medicare. ( in my county)

You have badly mischaracterized Adreleline's statements. Re-read her quote and realize that her administrative costs are huge with private insurers, and are modest and predictable with Medicare/Medicaid. I have tried to make this point over and over again in this thread only to be put down for offering "apocryphal" stories. I lived this situation for years and years, trying to improve the practice's receivable aging. We did a lot, only to butt up against the brick wall of initial denials (which are worse in some companies than others, but are industry-standard). In a fair system, an insurance company should have to pay reasonable claims up-front, and then contest claims after the fact, if necessary. This is not the US system. The US system forces doctors to keep coders and billing specialists busy full-time coding, submitting, and re-coding and resubmitting in order to get any payment for services rendered. Health insurance is a protection racket. It is not "insurance" in any reasonable interpretation of the word, since your carrier will drop you as soon as you get any expensive illness.

 

[WhoWee]

You have badly mischaracterized Adreleline's statements. Re-read her quote and realize that her administrative costs are huge with private insurers, and are modest and predictable with Medicare/Medicaid. I have tried to make this point over and over again in this thread only to be put down for offering "apocryphal" stories. I lived this situation for years and years, trying to improve the practice's receivable aging. We did a lot, only to butt up against the brick wall of initial denials (which are worse in some companies than others, but are industry-standard). In a fair system, an insurance company should have to pay reasonable claims up-front, and then contest claims after the fact, if necessary. This is not the US system. The US system forces doctors to keep coders and billing specialists busy full-time coding, submitting, and re-coding and resubmitting in order to get any payment for services rendered. Health insurance is a protection racket. It is not "insurance" in any reasonable interpretation of the word, since your carrier will drop you as soon as you get any expensive illness.

I'm not trying to mischarachterize her statements - that's why I posted her entire statement. Instead, I wanted to draw attention to the administrative nightmare faced by insurance companies and providers.

When she says
"I have one medicare/medicaid coder and biller, I have a army to deal with the 200 private insurance plans, I have six check in and check out people to confirm insurances, wether they pay for physicals, what labs I must send blood work to etc., I have over 8 -telephone people at all times not just fielding questions but also helping with prior authorizations and precerts, etc. If the public option now offers me another say 100 plans, all with different formulaies, contsraints on procedures, which labs I have to send my blood ( lab corp,quest etc.) I will have to hire another slew of office workers just to deal with them."

Her reference to 200 private insurance plans provides a real analysis of the difficulties providers face administratively. If those 200 plans are (most likely) spread across 25 to 30 (6 to 8 plans each) insurance companies total. Now expand those 25 to 30 companies and 200 policies to 50 states and we realize the same 25 to 30 companies have 10,000 (state specific) policies to manage.

Her concern is that HR3200 will greatly increase the problem by adding as many as 100 MORE plans to administer.

One of the biggest wastes in the insurance industry is differing standards mandated across the states. There is no reason whatsoever we can't have 10 or 12 basic health plans that everyone offers. This standardization would simplify coding, create competition, eliminate 49 compliance departments at each of the 25 to 30 insurance companies, eliminate duplication in all 50 state departments of insurance, speed payment, expand coverage (due to cost savings), and enable coverage for pre-existing conditions.

 

[WhoWee]

Again, we need to remove politics from the debate and focus on solving specific problems.

 

[Al68]

Some US states DO have "Western European" levels of infant mortality,
at least for whites:

New Jersey ... 3.7
Massachusetts ... 4.0
California .... 4.6
New York .... 4.6

Do these states "cheat" 3% to 4% away from their statistics as well?

The US average is dragged down by the states run by conservatives.
The numbers for non-Hispanic whites:

West Virginia ... 7.5
Oklahoma .... 7.5
Arkansas .... 7.2
Louisiana .... 7.1
Indiana ... 7.0
Tennessee ... 7.0
Mississippi ... 7.0

Gee, the rich states have lower infant mortality rates. Big surprise.

It's the neocon fanatics who put the US to shame, again. Organizing a witch hunt
against Health care reform while failing to take care of their own newborns.

Why the hate? No one is against reform. The current proposal being debated in the U.S. is not reform, it just the opposite.

 

[Al68]

Again, we need to remove politics from the debate and focus on solving specific problems.

That's hard to do when the debate is about whether to use political power to solve problems.

 

[Hans de Vries]

I've provided a reference showing how these infant mortality comparisons between countries are fundamentally flawed due to serious differences in data collection, not some exceptional cases. The best one can do from these lists, without correcting for differences in the measurement, is to say a given nation is in the top 20% or so.

You provided multiple wrong references:

All the countries you mention, but also the states of the USA, adopted the WHO
definition of infant mortality in the late 80's or the early 90's. Infant morality is
defined as dead before the first birthday after live birth, and

A live birth is the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or any definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat

Definitions used in the by the WHO, the European union, individual US states and
various other countries: http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_education_En/Live_birth_definition.htmRegards, Hans

 

[Hans de Vries]

World Health statistics 2009:

http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_Full.pdf
http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html


Regards, Hans